At a U13 rec game today I heard the strangest explanation of a call from an umpire I have ever heard. R3 and R1. 2 outs. BR hits a lazy grounder to 3B. R1 more walks than runs toward second. T3B throws to 2B for the force at second. Then it became interesting. PU made a point of going over to both coaches and telling them the run did not count because "it was a timing play, and the runner had not crossed home before the out at second." He THEN proceeded to say it was a timing play because R1 could have just hung out between 1B and 2B until the run scored so there was no "force" becaue BR had already reached 1B.
Are there ANY set of facts in which PU could be correct in this sitch???
p.s. - I was there watching my son play and, properly, I said not a word.

Nope. R1 must get second safely and BR must reach base safely for there to be the possibility of a timing play when 2 are out.

-J

No. PU is wrong.

rickfriedmann,

As DG and UofIBlue have already told you, the PU is spouting utter nonsense in regard to the situation you describe.

But, as DG noted, you ask the interesting question:

Since you asked....

Oddly enough, there sort of <b>is</b>. This "set of facts" differs from your sitch in one material respect, but I believe it is relevant to the question you pose.

Let's say that instead of the defense properly tagging 2B before the R1 reaches it, the R1 doesn't just "dawdle" in his advance towards 2B - he flat out quits! As a result, the umpire declares him out for abandonment and the defense doesn't bother to legally tag 2B before the R1 reaches it. He's already out, why bother?

Let's further imagine that the R3 touched home before the umpire judged that the R1 had abandoned his effort to run the bases.

In that case, the run <b>would</b> score! At least that's what J/R says.

JM

Interesting set-up CoachJR - I'm not completely sure I agree (I think there still is a force, and unless R1 reaches 2b safely he is out on a force) I can see your logic.
I am REALLY glad to know I wasn't off my rocker when my eyes raised at the explanation. For a moment (fortunately, a brief one, and mostly because my six year old was pulling at my sleeve) I thought I was Alice in Wonderland!

JM, can you quote that passage from J/R? If it's real long, don't worry about it.

Thats why rules knowledge separates the good from the great umpires!

OK. I'll profess my ignorance - J/R?

largeone59,

Since you asked so nicely....

(The reason the above is posted in red is because that is how it is printed in J/R. When it's printed in red it means it's a J/R interpretation that has been neither formally accepted nor contradicted by MLB.)

rickfriedmann,

I'm not sure I completely agree either. But, who am I to question Rick Roder? BTW, you weren't in Wonderland - you were in CalvinBall-land.

JM

Edited to add:

J/R refers to the book "The Rules of Professional Baseball", co-authored by Chris Jaksa and Rick Roder. I would strongly encourage you to obtain a copy if this stuff interests you. (Warning: this can consume ridiculous amounts of your time.) You can buy it at:

http://www.rulesofbaseball.com/

[Edited by CoachJM on Jun 2nd, 2005 at 01:10 AM]

J/R
 

J/R refers to the book "The Rules of Professional Baseball", co-authored by Chris Jaksa and Rick Roder. I would strongly encourage you to obtain a copy if this stuff interests you. (Warning: this can consume ridiculous amounts of your time.) You can buy it at:

http://www.rulesofbaseball.com/

[Edited by CoachJM on Jun 2nd, 2005 at 01:10 AM] [/B][/QUOTE]


Just a quick note to the Coach for all to see re: J/R. I have read numerous posts on this site quoting J/R and (before Coach today) someone, it may actually have been Coach, posted the link to buy it.

Very simple review: the best $30.00 I ever spent on a book. This book is now my go-to guide. IMHO I highly recommend it!